PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

D G Kassebaum

Publications and source records attributed to D G Kassebaum.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1992

Origin of the LCME, the AAMC-AMA partnership for accreditation.

The accrediting agency for U.S. and Canadian medical education programs, the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), was founded 50 years ago at a 1942 meeting of leaders of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the American Medical Association. The author, using sources from the AAMC archives and elsewhere, describes the background, content, and outcomes of this meeting, which was called to devise ways for the two organizations to avoid duplication of effort during the emergency conditions brought about by World War II. The participants met for several specific reasons: to create a united front to protect medical students from the wartime draft, to find economies in carrying out the profession's duties to assure the quality of medical education, and to survey medical schools that were being affected by pressure for continuous sessions and accelerated medical training. At this meeting a joint board for medical school surveys was created; eventually this liaison board became known as the LCME. The author closes with a quote from the 1942 meeting concerning the social responsibility of medical education and notes the continuing importance to translate this and other imperatives into standards for accreditation that protect educational quality and foster its improvement.

Accreditation↗
PubMed1990

The measurement of outcomes in the assessment of educational program effectiveness.

Postsecondary accrediting agencies recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education and the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation, including the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), are required to evaluate educational program effectiveness by determining that institutions and programs document the achievement of their students and graduates in verifiable and consistent ways, indicating that institutional and program purposes are met. For the assessment of medical education programs this represents a departure from the traditional method of inferring quality from institutional compliance with standards for program organization and function. In the new assessment calculus, success is measured as the integrated product of the outcomes, the indicators of achievement that medical schools already are collecting from many sources, for instance, data on premedical achievement and attributes, medical school performance, graduate education ratings and test results, specialty certification, licensure, and practice. Although a recent LCME enquiry showed that 80% of U.S. medical schools were collecting outcome data on students and graduates, there was a lack of coherence and system, little integrated analysis, rare longitudinal study, and limited use of the information to evaluate and revise the curriculum or to validate admissions, promotion, and graduation criteria. The longitudinal study of the quantified results of educational programs need not resurrect old controversies about the linkage between learning in medical school and the quality of doctors' later practice. The purpose of examining outcomes is to gain sharper focus on the achievement of distinctive institutional goals, to facilitate program improvement and renewal, and to better assure the competence of graduates within the boundaries of achievement that schools have drawn as their educational objectives.

Accreditation↗
PubMed1978

Survival in patients with intraventricular conduction defects.

All 42,000 electrocardiograms taken at the University of Oregon Health Sciences Center from 1969 through 1971 were reviewed; 325 patients (0.77%) had left bundle-branch block (LBBB) or right bundle-branch block (RBBB) with axis deviation (AD). In December 1974, 90% were contacted or found to be dead. The five-year survival rate (actuarial technique) (mean +/- SE) was 45.5 +/- 2.9%. It was significantly worse than that of age- and sex-matched "controls." In most patients the cause of death could not be determined. Survival of 164 LBBB patients (40.7 +/- 4.1%) at five years was not significantly worse than that of 161 RBBB and AD patients (49.5 +/- 4.2%). Those with syncope did no worse in terms of survival than did those without. The five-year survival in coronary artery disease patients was 33.7 +/- 4.4%, in those with primary conduction system disease (20% of patients), it was 50.6 +/- 6.6%. It will be necessary to know the causes of death and of syncope in conduction disease patients before it can be determined whether or not pacemakers can prevent either.

Adult↗